Deliberate Dumbing Down of America Public Education

211 taken at the regional hearings, the views spelled out in the above-mentioned policies, as well as the requirements of the PPRA. The two policy statements represent a strong position taken by the National Council, which oversaw the research activities of the former National Institute of Education prior to its being incorporated into the Office of Educational Research and Im provement (OERI). The Council had quite obviously read the important testimony regarding Skinnerian mastery learning/direct instruction which was given at the regional hearings on the PPRA. The Council took a stand on the most important question facing us today in education: Are we, as free Americans, going to continue to accept the succinctly expressed definition of educational research included in the last sentence of the June 14 policy, a definition which is undeniably behaviorist and part of the behavioral psychologists’ vocabulary—“observa tion and measurement of the educational process using the largely quantitative techniques of modern social science”? Or do we agree with the Council that the fundamental philosophical foundation for such research should be the “unambiguous recognition and respect for the dignity and value of each human person”? [Ed. Note: As a complete counterpoint to the strong policy position taken by the council, the following information should be carefully considered. Professor Robert Glaser, professor of psychology and education and co-director of the Learning Research and Development Center of the University of Pittsburgh, was for all intents and purposes put in charge of the Com mission on Reading in 1983. It was Glaser who appointed members to the Commission on Reading, thereby wielding considerable influence on the recommendations resulting from that Commission’s report, Becoming a Nation of Readers , for which Glaser wrote the foreward and which was published under the auspices of the National Academy of Education’s Commission on Education and Public Policy with sponsorship from the National Institute of Education. That report was probably the most important study which set the stage for the Reading Excellence Act of 1998 (REA), setting in motion numerous activities which resulted in a determination that only proposals which were based on “scientific research” would be accepted for funding under the REA. In the foreward to Becoming a Nation of Readers , Glaser said: In teaching, as in other professions, well-researched methods and tools are essential. This report makes clear the key role of teachers’ professional knowledge. Research on instructional pacing and grouping and on adaptation to children’s accomplishments has contributed to new ideas that can help all children master the basics and then attain levels of literacy far beyond the basic competencies. The reading teacher’s repertoire must draw upon the deep ening knowledge of child development, of the nature of the art and elegance of children’s literature, and of the psychology of learning.… The report indicates why changes in teacher training, internship experiences, continuing, and sabbatical periods are necessary if teachers are to learn and refine their skills for their complex task. Professor Glaser’s credentials are uniquely important, placing him in a position of promi nence regarding what method of instruction will be used in American classrooms—one based on the worldview that man is a human being, created in the image of God, with conscience, soul, intellect, creativity, free will, or one based on the new psychology of learning (“scientific,” evolutionist, “research-based”)—the worldview that man is an animal whose behavior can be manipulated by creating the necessary environment to bring about predictable, predetermined, neurologically conditioned responses. (The reader should refer to Appendix III, “Excerpts from Programmed Learning: Evolving Principles and Industrial Applications ,” which is a report of The "Effective" Eighties : c. 1984